True_Avery Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 http://www.gamespot.com/hardware/blogs/hardware-insider/909185655/26826428/crytek-demoes-cryengine-3-for-pc-xbox-360-and-ps3.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=picks&tag=picks;title;1 Looks pretty cool. Looks they they want to update it like the Source engine instead of creating a new engine every few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted March 28, 2009 Author Share Posted March 28, 2009 http://www.gamespot.com/hardware/blogs/hardware-insider/909185655/26826428/crytek-demoes-cryengine-3-for-pc-xbox-360-and-ps3.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=picks&tag=picks;title;1 Looks pretty cool. Looks they they want to update it like the Source engine instead of creating a new engine every few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralPloKoon Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 More computers just cried out in agony... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralPloKoon Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 More computers just cried out in agony... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Mmm not as impressive as I'd expected, but I guess it makes sense they're not rolling fresh new engines every 2 years Also confirms that they are humans and not a cabal of destructive cyborgs. If anything, I think the flexibility should allow CryTek to start licensing the engine on a larger scale, like Epic and the scalability will have them last for at least 2 or 3 years. By that time, they'll roll in a brand new engine that will blow people's minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Mmm not as impressive as I'd expected, but I guess it makes sense they're not rolling fresh new engines every 2 years Also confirms that they are humans and not a cabal of destructive cyborgs. If anything, I think the flexibility should allow CryTek to start licensing the engine on a larger scale, like Epic and the scalability will have them last for at least 2 or 3 years. By that time, they'll roll in a brand new engine that will blow people's minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 I haven't played Crysis so I don't have much to compare it to, but it looks pretty impressive. It's cool that they got it running on the consoles as well now instead of just PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 I haven't played Crysis so I don't have much to compare it to, but it looks pretty impressive. It's cool that they got it running on the consoles as well now instead of just PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 This is the reason why I believe the Source Engine to be superior: It can run very well on a wide variety of systems, unlike Crysis, which is designed for computers of tomorrow. The best engine for games must have maximum performance with stunning visuals, and must be able to run seamlessly on almost every machine out there. So far, that's a pipe dream, especially with the Unreal Engine 3, which again, requires a really, really good computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriggerGod Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 unlike Crysis, which is designed for computers of tomorrow. I disagree, to some degree. First, my computer can successfully run Crysis and CryEngine successfully, and it was built some 3-5 years ago. Definitely not a computer of the future. Hell, I think I have a Single Core Processor, and I can run this. (I'm not checking right now.) Although my computer was only just barely able to pass the requirements to install. I now play my Crysis on Minimum settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 I disagree, to some degree. First, my computer can successfully run Crysis and CryEngine successfully, and it was built some 3-5 years ago. Definitely not a computer of the future. Hell, I think I have a Single Core Processor, and I can run this. (I'm not checking right now.) Although my computer was only just barely able to pass the requirements to install. I now play my Crysis on Minimum settings. I think PastramiX is saying that a good engine would strike the right balance between both performance/scalability and graphics. I'll agree with him on that, running Crysis is unthinkable on my computer (which is about 6-7 years old, and kind of old even for that period), but Source-based games run surprisingly well at medium-high graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 One of the reasons why the Source Engine is excellent is because it really, really, knows Windows. Valve must have put a lot of time evaluating Windows' architecture, especially DirectX, as almost every sort of possible enhancement is utilized by Source. One way to really acknowledge that is to see if an engine might fare well on other systems, and although Source is designed for Windows-only, one of the best functioning games on Linux via WINE is Counter-Strike: Source. That alone proves that Valve truly understands the Windows architecture. KotOR, for example, ran horribly with my previous graphics card, even though my system as a whole was two years older than the game itself. Even today, I can only have 4x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering, and it still gets only ~30 FPS. Now, when running any Source Engine game, using the same specifications, I can get ~40 FPS. Now, there many things that can effect this, especially the fact that the Odyssey Engine uses OpenGL to render instead of Source using DirectX, but overall, I feel that Source was very well designed. To be honest, the best thing for developers to do when writing the engine is to not integrate the game's resources and the engine core as one unit. Each "game" should be simply a module of resources, while the engine can act as an interpreter, a sub-kernel, if you will. The engine can read the scripts, and run the module, without having to incorporate its resources into the engine's internal processes. The Source Engine is closest thing to that, although it still requires many HL2 resources for any module. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralPloKoon Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Call me crazy, but I think the Source engine is the greatest engine of all time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted March 29, 2009 Author Share Posted March 29, 2009 Agreed on the points about the source engine. But, as far as CryEngine goes, I'll hold judgment. From the sounds of it they want to update it on a consistent basis instead of just throwing it out there and working on a new engine. This could mean that, over time, it becomes more computer friendly. Being someone who picked up Half-Life 2 on day one, the source engine was not always this flexible. It was more flexible upon release than Cryengine was, but still. After yeas of updates, however, you can run source on a 10 year old computer at low settings. Its all about working with developers and having a team dedicated to get the engine out to players. So, while CryEngine looks to be designed for the higher end computers, it may be able to be boosted down. Example? The video was having it play on the 360 and PS3, which gives me hope for both newer and older PC flexibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 from what i know, CryEngine3 is built on CryEngine2, and it shows from the demo. as someone who's played Crysis on High settings, everything about that demo is familiar, but it doesn't look quite up to par. what that tells me, though, is that CryEngine3 is going to have a much greater degree of scalability to it. having the ability to build a game engine for PC's where you have a much higher potential for computational and graphics power is one thing. building a game engine that can successfully scale down for a console is another. CryEngine2, although extremely capable in its own right, just didn't have the ability to be scaled down for consoles which is why Crysis is a PC exclusive. CryEngine3, on the other hand, has that potential which makes it much more suitable for developers, especially with everything going multiplatform these days. still, i don't see it as a really huge leap forward. yeah, it'll mean that we'll probably see a version of Crysis built for the consoles before long, but its not some huge leap in terms of what we can do with graphics and games as a whole like CryEngine2 was. that's not to say that i'm not excited; its just that i'm not quite as impressed as i was with my first glimpses of CryEngine2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.